I agree that this was much more targeted than indiscriminate bombing and in the context of war that is a good thing.
However, the experience of being blind in a society like the US with rehab, adaptive aids, and protective laws is very different than being blind in some other parts of the world. Losing just one eye is not, long term, tremendously impactful but losing both is regardless of where you live. How much more so in a less wealthy nation with fewer legal safeguards?
At least Lebanon isn’t the sort of Muslim country that routinely amputates the hands of thieves (they use prison terms) but imagine if they were and you had lost a hand - people meeting you for the first time might assume a criminal background you don’t have.
A brief foray on Google indicates that there is a significant level of unemployment in Lebanon even among the able-bodied (which might even be a motivation for joining an organization like Hezbollah if a young man has a family to feed). The disabled are much less employed. Some of these young men will become a life-long burden to their families rather than a breadwinner. Maybe this was better than some alternatives but it’s still bad.
Disability of this sort causes life-long suffering even in the best of circumstances, even more so in less idyllic nations and societies. Is it worse than death? For some, yes. For most, no, but let’s not kid ourselves about the seriousness of such maiming.
Yes, their communications is degraded. I’m not sure how much that actually impairs their ability to shoot rockets toward Israel.
I agree, the pager attack is better in many ways than what has been done to Gaza.
Also, if Israel doesn’t abide by those laws they shouldn’t expect anyone they’re at war with to comply, either. Which is how we get atrocities happening on both sides. It also erodes support for Israel among other nations, including those that are currently (but may not continue to be) allies.
We don’t. They’ve been massacaring civilians since 1947. We’d have to be seriously mentally impaired if we expected our neighbors to follow the rules of war when they have shown us again and again and again and again and again and again and again that they will happily target civilians in order to try and scare us off the land. And I’m not talking about Palestinians, there; I’m talking about our nation state neighbors.
And in the years since 73 they may not have fought us, but from Assad using chemical weapons on his own civilians to the way Saudi Arabia fights the Houthis, our bestated neighbors have continued to demonstrate exactly what they think about humanitarian warfare. And should we ever end up in open war against them again, I fully expect them to deploy precisely those kinds of tactics.
Yes, I was being tongue in cheek - Iran js more providing the means and less forcing them into it.
Still, I think it is important to recognize the true scope of this conflict, which is not just isolated fighting with Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s entire proxy network, and their own logistics chain, are fully involved.
It is harder to coordinate any operations when you cannot communicate. Others means of communicating orders have not only less efficiency but greater risks of interception. They may reconsider taking their hard punch when they are least capable of handling the counter response. Deterrence.
Lastly is the possibly biggest deal in my mind: Hizbullah is the proxy but Iran gives the commands, as I understand anyway. Israel has just demonstrated an impressive capability to target from a distance. More than before which was significant. Do they have such for Iranian leadership? Probably not. But there is now some question in their minds.
Keep in mind that Hezbollah (and their masters in Teheran) have been signaling intent to widen the conflict significantly. Even if taking out Hezbollah’s communications network doesn’t stop them from firing rockets, it will be an enormous complication to any potential invasion or larger scale attack. If they were about to launch such an operation, this attack may have set them back months.
Yeah. While I’ve certainly been critical of Israel in their dealings with Palestinians, their usual response when told, “that violates international law” is, “so what, our opponents routinely violate international law, why should we fight with one hand behind our back.”
It’s not clear to me whether this was a violation of the international laws or not, but it’s clear that, “they’ll break those laws, too” is not going to dissuade Israel.
This was a novel attack. But it’ll be done again. Probably in many conflicts, in many variations. (And one of the reasons the US military pays a lot more for stuff than American consumers do is to avoid this general line of attack. “Exploding Pagers” is novel, but “corrupt the opponent’s tools” is not.) Maybe there will be new international laws covering it. Maybe some nations will abide by those laws. Hard to predict. While this makes my life a little less safe, i can’t say it’s on the same level as nuclear bombs or poison gas.
I have - that was mostly for the benefit of those who have not. With the caveat that if the current war in the Levant expands Israel may be in conflict with more than just its immediate neighbors.
Yes… nonetheless, Israel should consider consequences of their choices. I don’t decide the risk/benefit balance of those actions. That doesn’t stop me from having an opinion. No one had attempted this sort of exploding electronic device attack before so the consequences weren’t certain, but going forward this will be see as a form of attack that maims, that takes peoples’ hands and permanently blinds them. In general, attacks with a primary consequence of permanently blinding people are see as pretty terrible. Countries that have signed agreements saying that sort of weapon is beyond the pale are not going to say “well, Israel’s circumstances are different”, they’re going to say “Israel uses weapons we considered off limits for our own use. They’re horrible people doing so.”
Whether or not that is just or fair is a ridiculous question - war is inherently unfair and unjust. That said, a more negative view of Israel is one of consequences of how Israel has been engaged in conflict over the past year. The people running Israel may think what they’re doing is the best thing, that does not mean the rest of the world will agree with them.
Who exactly do you imagine we are going to come into conflict with who doesn’t already routinely war crime it up against their own people or against neighboring insurgents, or perhaps against everyone’s second favorite target, the Kurds?
Seriously, name one country that Israel might conceivably come into armed conflict with that doesn’t already fight much uglier than Israel.
I’m not so sure. With the rise of Amazon, Temu, etc. we see how easy it is to openly sell counterfeit items right into the US. How hard would it be to do the same with booby trapped thumb drives and Bluetooth speakers?
It doesn’t seem like booby-trapping random products would work for any kind of targeted attack. It worked with Hezbollah because they were the ones using these devices almost exclusively, but that situation is not very common. If someone wants to cause general chaos by exploding random printers, then maybe they would do something like putting explosives in toner cartridges. But if they are trying to target specific individuals or organizations, then it doesn’t seem like it would be at all effective. But perhaps if there’s a situation like someone really hated vaping, they might booby-trap vapes as a way to eliminate vaping.
I saw a movie once where a villain hated cans and was going around shooting them when he’d see them in public places, like gas stations. Jerks like those might consider booby-trapping cans
In 2015, Chrysler recalled 1.4 million cars after their firmware was hacked. Systems affected included the air conditioning, radio, and as I alluded to the transmission.
The Wired magazine article was about two well-known hackers, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, who remotely took control of the Cherokee through its UConnect entertainment system. They were able to change the vehicle’s speed and control the brakes, radio, windshield wipers, transmission and other features.
The Internet of Things is notoriously insecure as detailed by Brian Krebs in articles such as this.
Greil said there are other undocumented functionalities in the Sony IP cameras that could be maliciously used by malware or miscreants, such as commands that can be invoked to distort images and/or video recorded by the cameras, or a camera heating feature that could be abused to overheat the devices.
These attacks were mostly conducted by the curious in the past, but I would predict that professional and malicious attacks will occur in the future. Like the one in the OP for example. I agree with @puzzlegal that, “While this makes my life a little less safe, I can’t say it’s on the same level as nuclear bombs or poison gas.” On balance I remain sympathetic with Israel (though not Netanyahu), but I anticipate a degree of blowback, as well as legal debate. I don’t dismiss the downsides.
